Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by James Lacey

Texas is, unfortunately, continuing to break records. We have entirely blown through the peaks of last Jan. and Sep. with a 7-day average of new cases of over 70,000 the previous few days. We have a few more rough weeks to go, it seems.

All of our family and friends that have kids in daycare or school are sick with the virus. Kids seem to be a colossal vector right now since many are unvaccinated and in a crowded unsafe situation.

Colorado too, although we might have passed the peak.  The data is noisy.

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Maybe I can explain it to you, since the article was about the Delta Strain, and how Natural Immunity provided BETTER protection than the vaccine itself did, which is of course completely contrary to

You were one of the most vocal if I'm not mistaken when the Delta strain was around, and You were adamant that the Vaccine provided much better protection against it compared to Natural Immunity.

I mean to say you were almost going insane, claiming that the Vaccine was much better than natural immunity.  I know Fake Rod was saying that same thing.

Well it appears now, that the CDC itself says the exact opposite, contrary to what you and every other leftist here claimed. 

Contrary to what?  You seem to have slipped a cog there Rich.

James's and Rod's posts are still here in the relevant time frame since they have avoided losing their accounts repeatedly.  I myself do not recall either one of them arguing insanely that the vaccine was better than a previous infection.  I could be wrong.  I myself have argued that getting a vaccination was a really good idea, and this data supports that conclusion.  The debate nationally has not typically been framed in the "should a person previously infected infected with alpha get the jab to protect against delta?" context.  On the contrary, the debate nationally has been "should everyone be forced to get the jab."

Here on this forum it was different, because Greg has stated many times that he was skipping the jab and counting on his natural immunity to protect him.  Turns out that Greg's was a very defensible position.  I don't recall much push back against Greg when he stated his position here.  Personally, I think that I always thought Greg made a decent point, since I have always thought that natural immunity was strong.  I could be remembering wrong, so apologies in advance if I ever posted anything contrary to that.  

Jim 

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

I'm just getting a slight kick out of you guys, frantically responding to the report from the CDC.

It gives me a good chuckle!    LOL  

Frantic?  Hmm, once again I don't think that word means what you think it means.  Not going to waste time today making you look like a fool again.  But "frantic,"  "almost going insane," etc.  Find me a post where James or Rod insanely argued that the jab was much better than natural immunity.  That should take you a while.  Of course, if you prefer you could just keep making stuff up.

Jim

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Saw this advertised on CNN: basically it's a glock-like co2 powered handgun-like device that shoots nonlethal musket-like sting balls into potential assailants:
https://byrna.com/
Now I'm guessing cons like the real deal instead but I'd thought I'd ask...

Hi Rod:

I looked it over, as you probably recall I am not a gun owner myself, although I have some hunting experience from my youth.  One thing intrigued me on their web page - you and your brethren in New York can not buy these.  See below.  I do not know if it is illegal to own them.  This seems pretty counterintuitive to me.  Does California want to force you into the gun market if you are interested in defending your family?  Any insight?  Jim

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Thanks for the comments and info, Jim. I wasn't aware of the restriction to California or other states. It's not clear to me if the "gun" or launcher as it's called is restricted or only some of the ammo it shoots. Anyhow, your point is well-taken.

Upon further review, it looks like only the tear-gas or pepper spray ammo in CA.  Everything in NYC though.  

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

According to immoral fools like yourself, abortions up to the time of conception is Legal in your mind.

Sloppy mind, sloppy writing.

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer

So telling a man he needs some Vasigil makes someone a misogynist?

Now you should probably apply a "liberal" dose of it lol.....I wonder, do I now hate women as well?

Hi Greg:

Maybe not if this were an isolated joke, and speaking of jokes, your ""liberal" dose" line is pretty darned funny in context.  

In Richard's case though, I've read enough of his stuff over the years to be confident that he is a genuine misogynist.  My opinion only.  Obviously Richard does not care what I or anyone else thinks of him.  I'm only replying to point out that Jim M's conclusion about Rich's alleged misogyny is probably the result of years of posts, not one post.

Jim

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

"Most Americans oppose overturning the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade precedent, according to a new CNN Poll conducted by SSRS, with a majority saying that if the decision was vacated, they'd want to see their own state move toward more permissive abortion laws."
"Just 30% of Americans say they'd like to see the Supreme Court completely overturn its Roe vs. Wade decision, with 69% opposed -- a finding that's largely consistent both with other recent polling and with historical trends."
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/21/politics/cnn-poll-abortion-roe-v-wade/index.html

Fortunately, the Court will not consider popular opinion - they'll consider the constitutional underpinnings of Roe, and reach their conclusions.  I think this is true for the liberal and conservative wings of the court both.  Their constitutional analysis will vary dramatically, depending upon their school of approach to constitutional law.

This raises an interesting point, I think.  Some think that an originalist approach like that employed by Scalia or Thomas is the only valid and proper approach.  Opposite hard-liners on the left think a more dynamic interpretation such as used by Sotomayor or to a lesser extent RGB is the only valid and proper approach.  Actually, both are valid approaches that have strengths and weaknesses.  This is why actual court opinions are so complex and interesting.  

Many states already have permissive abortion laws.  Some do not.  I personally think this is appropriate.  Let the states decide.  If Roe is overturned and this issue is kicked back to the states, I would expect more pro-choice state legislatures over time and more permissive state laws over time.  Overturning Roe, could be the motivation for Texas turning blue for example.  Hard to tell.

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer

Boy do we have some fundamental differences here lol

I disagree whole heartedly, the reason we have USSC opinions that are so complex is LAWYERS ARE INVOLVED and they have PERSONAL BIASES. In fact, things would be a LOT easier and less complex without lawyers at all....between lawyers and bankers I am not sure which is worse unless its someone who is both. Between the two though they have managed to lead this nation to the brink of ruin IMO.....

The language of the Constitution and the BOR is not all that complicated, rather simple in fact and where it isnt there are the writings of the founders to clarify it.....but that has not stopped lawyers from twisting it into a pretzel to serve their own ends and biases. 

 

Hi Greg:

Thanks for the well thought out reply.  Personally, I think nothing is simple once you really dig into it.  I think this is true of the law, medicine, plumbing, electrical work, teaching or any other profession.  Consider the 2nd amendment.  I am pretty sure you think it is simple, and on the surface it is.  "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Ok, but what do the first two clause mean:  "A well regulated Militia...being necessary to the security of a free State..."?  the founders could have left that off, but they did not.  Are these meaningful limitations on the key third clause?  This is an issue lawyers and courts have been wrangling with forever. 

What are "Arms?"  Another issue that has been litigated forever.  The definition of "Arms" and the historical context of the 2d Amendment were at the core of Scalia's Heller opinion that preserved the right to carry conventional modern defensive weapons and modern hunting weapons. 

Some people would argue that arms in proper historical context means muskets and knives.  I know from past discussions that you and I both would disagree with these people.  Why do we disagree?  Other folks would argue that arms includes any weaponry.  Bazookas, hand grenades, bombs and so on.  I know from past discussions that you and I both would disagree with them too.  But why?  

What does "infringed" mean in context?  Why is a waiting period OK, but a ban is not?

My point is that simple language is not always simple to apply or simple to interpret.  

I personally am OK with the current state of the law.  It is legal to own/use modern handguns and rifles for defense or hunting.  Background checks are legal.  Total bans are not.  Military arms like grenades and bazookas are illegal and so on.  But getting from 1791 to 2022 required a lot of lawyers and judges really digging into tough interpretational issues.  

Jim

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Take Clarence for example, he's already reached his conclusions without hearing anything.

To be fair, so have Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer.  The issues surrounding Roe have been percolating in the justices' minds for many many years.